Comments on: Angry Goldwater Republican

By: Ayschlay

Ayschlay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:41:27 +0000

J, not off topic since I threw that in there. Thanks for the correction.

By: ~J~

~J~ — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:38:42 +0000

144,000 is the amount of Jews to be saved to evangelize other Jews so they can be saved. More than 144,000 Jews will be saved.

Sorry to go off topic.

By: Ayschlay

Ayschlay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:09:10 +0000

J, I think Moyers was trying to get Gold to explain that too, that alliance between secular neocons and the “theocons.” Gold seems to be saying its one of convenience.

It’s like the Israeli government PR folks forging relations with dispensationalist Christian organizations who think Israel will play (is playing) a crucial role in the endtimes. Even though these Christians believe only a certain number of Jews will be saved and make it to heaven (144,000, right?), the Israeli Jews like the political and economic support these Christians provide.

To both J and Big Mo–yes, I agree. I think fears of theocracy are exaggerated. Christians are too divided, disagree over too much, to mount such a campaign.

By: Big Mo

Big Mo — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:23:05 +0000

I can understand, on intellectual level, the liberal cry that *certain* conservative Christians seek to turn America into a theocracy.

But what they always fail to understand and appreciate is that the rest of us conservative Christians would stop them.

By: ~J~

~J~ — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:57:19 +0000

I watched the entire video, Ayschlay. Interesting and thank you for linking it.

Goldwater became more and more liberal as he got older. His last term in the Senate was more liberal than conservative. Why he changed I don’t know.

What I don’t understand is why this man says conservatives or neo-cons want a theocracy. If Bill Krystol is a Jew and another neo-con is a Baptist and another a Catholic, just exactly what theocracy do they all want? The faiths are all different.

Just because these people are famous and write for major or minor publications does not mean people blindly follow them when it comes time to vote.

I consider myself perfectly capable of deciding which candidate best agrees with my beliefs and I vote for that candidate no matter what anyone may say to me to get me to change.

I didn’t let the labor union I belonged to tell me how to vote and I don’t let anyone else tell me how to vote.

When we had our last senatorial campaign everyone who was anyone was endorsing the candidate running against Jim DeMint in the primary. I voted for DeMint because he struck me as the man who would best represent the things I was interested in and I have not been disappointed.

On the other hand I voted for Lindsey Graham in the primary and in the general election and I regret my vote in the primary at least. I will vote for any opponent of his in the next primary but if he wins I will vote for him in the election simply to keep another R in the Senate, but if the D candidate best represents my views I will strongly consider voting for him or her.